PA TANKS comparison with contempory tanks

Jango · Jan 19, 2013

Oscar said:

The video is pretty damning to say the least. Positioning of the sights right in the middle of the armour giving a potential hole, and also the straight face armor rather than sloped is very embarrassing. Every tank now has sloped armor, and it is a basic design feature.

As the video maker asked, why o why???

Manticore · Jan 19, 2013

Manticore · Jan 19, 2013

t80/t90 side by side

some diagrams
http://www.defence.pk/forums/land-warfare/106975-tank-designs-11.html

DARKY · Jan 19, 2013

Oscar said:
Werent there a HOST of issues with this design.. in what is essentially a modified T-72 with T-80 tech?
Pretty well documented on how the IA was not happy with it.

The 1st models of T-90S were cast turret... low amount of composites... and cast design as on Pakistani T-80U.
The latter models were wielded turret design with much better protection levels as compared with T-80U.

Arjun have had certain issues with its design no-doubt... but the bad attitude of army and corruption towards its induction in armed forces is something which cannot be denied... hence these days they use a black box in the tank.

DARKY · Jan 19, 2013

nuclearpak said:
The video is pretty damning to say the least. Positioning of the sights right in the middle of the armour giving a potential hole, and also the straight face armor rather than sloped is very embarrassing. Every tank now has sloped armor, and it is a basic design feature.

As the video maker asked, why o why???

There is a lot of armor behind the sight to go with it.... you can say the same about Leo 2 designs.
The Ceramic based armor design is the most effective when the armor is flat and not sloped... you see the same in latest tanks sch as Leo2A6...which has been a successful export.

Behind the NERA panels there is a flat main armor just like Arjun.
Even Russian tanks like T-80U[wielded turret] and T-90A/AM etc have flat armor just like Arjun.

farhan_9909 · Jan 19, 2013

DARKY said:
The 1st models of T-90S were cast turret... low amount of composites... and cast design as on Pakistani T-80U.
The latter models were wielded turret design with much better protection levels as compared with T-80U.

Arjun have had certain issues with its design no-doubt... but the bad attitude of army and corruption towards its induction in armed forces is something which cannot be denied... hence these days they use a black box in the tank.

The Pakistani t-80UD were better protected than even later developed t-84..courtesy a polish member in a indian defence forumm

DARKY · Jan 19, 2013

500 said:
early 90-es:
T-72B got 1A42 FCS from T-80U and was renamed to T-90.

You got to be mentioning which T-90 you are talking about... this can mislead readers.
For example the wielded turret on T-90C/S comes from the Object 187 project... which was designed beat even 140mm western projectiles of that time... on the main frontal armor... aided with 2nd gen. ERA.

While the cast turret used on early T-90A/S/C models were influenced by T-72 buffalo.. or Object 172M-2M "Buffalo".

Jango · Jan 19, 2013

DARKY said:
Behind the NERA panels there is a flat main armor just like Arjun.
.

But can the Arjun have NERA plates like that in front of the ceramic armour? Considering that it has the sights placed right on the front beside the turret unlike the Leo2. The Leo 2 can have NERA plates to reinforce the ceramic design as there would be no sights, but the case is different with Arjun. NERA would obstruct the sights.

And could you kindly expand on the 'ceramic plates work best if flat/vertical' thing?

Note: I ain't any expert or have any much knowledge on tanks!!!

DARKY · Jan 19, 2013

farhan_9909 said:
The Pakistani t-80UD were better protected than even later developed t-84..courtesy a polish member in a indian defence forumm

I don't care what some random member from xyz country says... you can decide yourself.

May be the Ukrainian govt. was not as smart as some random polish citizen... and developed a better tank.

DARKY · Jan 19, 2013

nuclearpak said:
But can the Arjun have NERA plates like that in front of the ceramic armour? Considering that it has the sights placed right on the front beside the turret unlike the Leo2. The Leo 2 can have NERA plates to reinforce the ceramic design as there would be no sights, but the case is different with Arjun. NERA would obstruct the sights.

And could you kindly expand on the 'ceramic plates work best if flat/vertical' thing?

Note: I ain't any expert or have any much knowledge on tanks!!!

The sight is always there... a little differently placed on leo2A5 and 6 perhaps... here is the Leo2A4... and the modernized version.

Arujn would not have NERA but ERA.

It would be a little difficult to position ERA in such a manner... however the weak spot hit probability is reduced manifolds.

Flat provides more volume for the different layers of ceramic, rubber, metal alloys, kevalar etc.. to act upon incoming projectile the more the volume the better effect they would have hence it is not sloped.

Neither am I any expert... you can know more from a metallurgical expert.

Capt.Popeye · Jan 19, 2013

DARKY said:
There is a lot of armor behind the sight to go with it.... you can say the same about Leo 2 designs.
The Ceramic based armor design is the most effective when the armor is flat and not sloped... you see the same in latest tanks sch as Leo2A6...which has been a successful export.

Behind the NERA panels there is a flat main armor just like Arjun.Even Russian tanks like T-80U[wielded turret] and T-90A/AM etc have flat armor just like Arjun.

There are quite a few misconceptions regarding Flat v/s Sloping armor in the region of the mantlet. And most of them seem to be born out of a 'childish' belief that shells will bounce off like a ball off a sloping surface. The first determinant is the nature of the Armor. Historically Russian designs used cast steel turrets. That combined with their desire to achieve low silhouettes (in those days- the Mk.1 Eyeball was probably the only sensor available to tank-men) resulted in the trade-mark design which still persists. It also happened to be cheaper and easier to build. In case of composite Armor, it works as efficiently with a flat face. So there is simply no need to extend it to construct sloping sides- that is just a redundancy. Which adds to costs.

As is rightly explained here (even with pictures) the Leopard series of tanks have "bolted on" sections/segments which can be added. Much more efficient that way.

Let us not forget that the keynote of Soviet tank design was to construct cheaper and easy to build tanks in vast numbers that could be operated by lesser (and lesser trained) crews. That design philosophy mainly continues with the Russians and has been susequently and whole-heartedly embraced by Ukrainian and Chinese (and consequently Pakistani) designs.

DARKY · Jan 19, 2013

Capt.Popeye said:
Let us not forget that the keynote of Soviet tank design was to construct cheaper and easy to build tanks in vast numbers that could be operated by lesser (and lesser trained) crews. That design philosophy mainly continues with the Russians and has been susequently and whole-heartedly embraced by Ukrainian and Chinese (and consequently Pakistani) designs.

Early soviet designs yes... later soviet designs no.
For example..
Object 187
Object 195
Object 640
Were to be the main soviet tanks... of the 90s and the new century.... read about them and you'll see what they were upto with these MBTs... one can only imagine their fire power.

I would not appreciate the Chinese way.... It has a lot of flaws... mainly due to blindly copying designs... and trying to make them modern... there are serious flaws in the main armor of ZTZ-99 and Al Khalid tanks.

Capt.Popeye · Jan 19, 2013

DARKY said:
Early soviet designs yes... later soviet designs no.
For example..
Object 187
Object 195
Object 640
Were to be the main soviet tanks... of the 90s and the new century.... read about them and you'll see what they were upto with these MBTs... one can only imagine their fire power.

I would not appreciate the Chinese way.... It has a lot of flaws... mainly due to blindly copying designs... and trying to make them modern... there are serious flaws in the main armor of ZTZ-99 and Al Khalid tanks.

The T-90s are cheaper and easier to build and operate than Arjuns for instance. That does not make them better or worse. Just cheaper and easier to build.

I did not at all talk about the fire-power. Soviet/Russian guns were always more robust and with greater "bang for the buck" than Western designs. Case in point the M-46 130 mm field gun was a bigger hitter than contemporary NATO designs, even of 155 mm caliber.

DARKY · Jan 19, 2013

Capt.Popeye said:
The T-90s are cheaper and easier to build and operate than Arjuns for instance. That does not make them better or worse. Just cheaper and easier to build.

I did not at all talk about the fire-power. Soviet/Russian guns were always more robust and with greater "bang for the buck" than Western designs. Case in point the M-46 130 mm field gun was a bigger hitter than contemporary NATO designs, even of 155 mm caliber.

Oh yes they are but at present Equip T-90 with Kaktus type armor module like the one in photo and T-90 becomes a tough nut to crack... add APS like Arena and you have somewhat near invisible tank in battle field at relatively low cost.

Kaktus early version.

Arena APS.

This T-90 would have much better kill ratio before being shot down.. in a tank battle... and even If shot down It can survive thanks to additional armor and much superior design.

Varunastra · Jan 19, 2013

Teeta said:
Well correct my "mistakes" but not by your speculations.

There is a difference my boy.

I haven't found anything stating Arjun's ROF to be somewhere around over 15...

Al Khalid-1 carries way more rounds...and has more firepower...these are plain facts. Now to give excuses "Oh, but our rounds are longer" is just plain childish

We used to do that in Cold-War era. No one will EVER accept that Soviets had a lead in some technologies over US. You guys are in same mode.

Pakistanis will always utter their product to be best, indians will do the same...

You both can learn from each other alot though...

What T-90 model did you use?

And don't make it a joke. So T-90 is 0.5 tons lighter than Al-Khalid and hence an "advantage"? Give me a freakin' break....

It should be atleast a difference of 10 tons! Learn how tanks are classified etc...

Also, your specs are just bs....specify which variant you are using. It seems that you have taken the 'best specs' of all variants and combined them into one! LOL.

Al Khalid is superior to T-90S (which is export version of T-90). And this fact is admitted by.......RUSSIAN POSTERS on this forum.

But India receives a bit 'upgraded' version of T-90S...so post the specs of that T-90 and we'll see...

T-90 would be superior to Arjuns offcourse, but are they superior to Al Khalids too? Can't say. It depends on what variant of T-90s you are using...

There is a reason your army is buying T-90s instead of Arjuns...

ya there is a reason , we are developing Arjun mk II which is a far potent beast ...it will complete trials within a few years and we are waiting for that.....T-90 will act as a stop gap measure as they are less costly and easy to build

Arjun mkII-

Search

PA TANKS comparison with contempory tanks

Jango

SENIOR MODERATOR

Manticore

RETIRED MOD

Manticore

RETIRED MOD

DARKY

SENIOR MEMBER

DARKY

SENIOR MEMBER

farhan_9909

PROFESSIONAL

DARKY

SENIOR MEMBER

Jango

SENIOR MODERATOR

DARKY

SENIOR MEMBER

DARKY

SENIOR MEMBER

Capt.Popeye

ELITE MEMBER

DARKY

SENIOR MEMBER

Capt.Popeye

ELITE MEMBER

DARKY

SENIOR MEMBER

Varunastra

SENIOR MEMBER

Similar threads

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Military Forum Latest Posts

Country Latest Posts